KAMLESH KUMAR Vs. SARDAR ATAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Moradabad in P.A. Case No. 29 of 2006, judgment and order dated 22.03.2010 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in Rent Control Appeal No. 18 of 2006. The release application was filed for the need of his wife and two sons. It was dismissed on merits with the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below on the ground that the petitioner-landlord had failed to establish his need on the date of filing of the release application. Another shop was vacated before filing of the present release application and this fact has not been disclosed therein The counsel for the petitioner challenging the order passed by the court below submits that the earlier release application was filed for augmenting the income of the petitioner-landlord and the shop which was released in his favour of the landlord in P.A. Case No. 2 of 1997, was infact used for the purpose of expansion of the business of the landlord. The need of his two sons namely Piyush Agarwal and Divyansh Agarwal has not been satisfied with the release of shop of another tenant.

(2.) The court below has heard and rejected the release application for the need of two sons of landlord namely Piyush Agarwal as well as Divyansh Agarwal. So far as the Divyansh Agarwal is concerned, the court below has observed that the petitioner can file a fresh release application as soon as he is grown up for setting up an independent business, if any. For Piyush Agarwal, the court below has observed that the petitioner has failed to establish that he had settled his son Piyush Agarwal in an independent business despite release of the shop for the purpose. To this finding learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to reiterate the need of Piyush, his son, for the fresh release application to be filed by him and the finding given by the court below may not come in his way as the vacant shop was used for expansion of the business of the petitioner-landlord. So far as the Divyansh Agarwal is concerned, the petitioner proposes to file a fresh release application.

(3.) Be that as it may, it is apparent from the records that the release application was decided with the dismissal of the Rent Control Appeal No. 18 of 2007 in the year 2007. More than five years have passed since the dismissal of the release application. It is, therefore, observed that in case, the petitioner files a fresh release application for the need available to him as on date, the same shall be considered and decided on merits. An endeavour be made by the Prescribed Authority to decide the release application as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of the same before it. This petition is disposed of the observation made above.